Template talk:Rfd relisted

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of redirects and their categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects.
This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages

"heading" parameter

Would anyone have an issue if I remove the heading= parameter from {{Rfd relisted}}? The parameter isn't really necessary since the first parameter in the template ("1=" for the technical folks) does the exact same thing. I'm asking because I'm planning to make some changes to this template that will improve its functionality in the event that it is used to relist a discussion that contains multiple redirects, but the functionality of this change probably cannot function correctly if the heading= parameter is still present. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who have used this template recently for their input (This notification should meet WP:APPNOTE since this template is substituted and thus would have no idea who uses the heading= parameter since it does the same thing as 1=): BDD, Deryck Chan, Tavix and Patar knight. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem for me. I always just do {{subst:rfd relisted|HEADING}} (i.e., section heading for "HEADING", and not using this parameter). Thanks for looking into improvements! --BDD (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is redundant and prevents increased functionality of the template as you say, I'm fine with the change. Looking forward to your work on this template. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I'm fine with anything that improves the functionality. Is this a good time to take suggestions? One thing I've always wondered is why this is only used for RFD and not the other "log-based" (eg: TFD, CFD) XFD forums. Is there any way to make this work elsewhere? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Most likely, it's because RfD is the only WP:XFD forum that completely blanks a nomination from its "old" page when it is relisted. If you look at all the other WP:XFD forums that use daily subpages, the process is to close the discussion to "relisted" instead of the way it's done in RfD. (This change may be something to investigate; if there's consensus to use that method instead, this template would no longer be necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I much prefer the way it's done at RFD as it's obvious which discussions were closed and which were relisted. I think it'd be worth having a discussion on that (but where?). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion(s) would probably need to take place on each individual WP:XFD board's talk page to form individual consensus at that board. (If I recall, I once tried to do such a change boldly at WP:TFD, but TFD's main administrator closer at the time preferred to use the current method, and then I decided to move on. ...And sure enough, Template:Tfd relisted was deleted back in 2013 per WP:G7; I think I was its creator.) Also, I'm actually concerned that if this template's relisting method were to be used at WP:FFD, it would possibly break AnomieBOT and the way it closes discussions on FFD. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Deryck C. 16:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to update WP:RFD's relisting instructions

Watchers of this page may be interested in participating in Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Let's update the instructions for relisting discussions as consensus there will affect this template's usage. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]